Like this:

I just added a new design to my Zazzle store. The product is a “trucker” style hat with the words “MAKE EARTH GREAT AGAIN” on the front, closely mimicking the caps Trump uses to promote his campaign. More important than a wall in between Mexico and the US is making sure us humans have a planet we can live on!

Like this:

You can now experience a simulated death, cremation, and reincarnation in China for about $68 US. One man says it is supposed to make you less scared about death, but watching this video just made me stressed–and I don’t usually worry about death.

Like this:

I love the internet because you never know what you’re going to find. Theanimalinyou.com has a short test that will, apparently, tell you what animal you are most like. It claims it’s short quiz is “The Original and Most Accurate Personality Test on the Web.” Well, I’m sure Miss Briggs-Myers posthumously disagrees with that…

I’m really a bat inside, by-the-way–how creepy! The description at the end of the test says I’m “a decidedly nonconformist creature.”

Like this:

Many are wondering why the now infamous Plos One paper, Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living, was published. In case you aren’t familiar with it, the paper has come under fire by scientists for its mentions of “the Creator” and intelligent design. Some are wondering if it was proper to retract the piece at all.

“The biomechanical characteristic of [the human hand] is the proper design by the Creator”

Jabs about creationists aside, the debate over how the paper passed reviewer’s judgement should take a step back.

One good point that has been raised is that we should tolerate calm discussion of different points of view in academia. On the surface, I agree with that statement. However, in this context, it does not apply. A scientific paper should not debate matters of theism, philosophy, etc. This should be left to the liberal arts. Philosophy exists for weighing different ideas, views, and truths–such as if there is evidence of a “Creator.”

Secondly, the paper does not try to argue that “the Creator” exists and designed human hands. It is merely an offhand mention. Since the authors are not intending to convince you of “the Creator’s” existence, I would say this is simply inappropriate wording. It was a poor decision to bring religion and deities into a banal piece about fingers. Not to mention that is risks alienating Plos One’s reader base. If I were the editor, I’d be a bit embarrassed right now.

Finally, I need to mention that the authors have claimed that “the Creator” is a poor translation of a Chinese saying, which was intended to mean nature. I don’t speak Chinese, but I think it’s a fair point–translations are not always accurate. It can be difficult to convey the feelings and ideas associated with certain foreign words and phrases to an English audience.

We can only wait and see how Plos One manages the blunder. It’s also pertinent to say that the retraction of somebody’s work can ruin their career, their livelihood. Will the authors regain respect in their field, or be dismissed as creationists?

Like this:

I have a growing number of self-portraits, with myself dressed/styled in an androgynous/masculine way. I wonder, when I die, how will people interpret that? I often think about all of the sketches and works I’ll leave to be found, after I die, and what will happen to them. Maybe they’ll only become worth something when I can make no more? My Ego can only hope!

This is part of an old drawing with felt-tip pen, chalk pastels, and pencil that turned out to have creepy eyes. Inspired by china dolls, Directoire Fashion Riding clothes, and, you guessed it, androgyny. It was just a fashion sketch anyways…(I took a cruddy picture with a camera, as I don’t have a scanner)